Fox & Friends hosts Steve Doocy and Pete Hegseth all but pleaded with a Republican national security expert to change his mind and support Donald Trump.
Roger Zakheim, former assistant defense secretary for George W. Bush, was one of 50 top Republican national security officials who signed a scathing letter denouncing Donald Trump as unfit to be president. The letter said he’d be “the most reckless president in American history," accused him of lacking the necessary “character, values and experience” and warned he would endanger our “national security and well-being.”
The New York Times noted, it is “extraordinarily rare” for foreign policy elites “to step into the political arena so publicly and aggressively.” But Doocy and Hegseth didn’t show much interest in such jaw-dropping criticism of a potential president from his own party.
No, Doocy and Hegseth were too busy painting Zakheim as disloyal and trying to talk him out of his misguided ways.
Doocy began by asking Zakheim asked why he had signed the memo, “essentially sandbagging the Republican nominee?”
Zakheim said he had had “concerns” about Trump “early on.” But, he added, “Events in the past couple of weeks really crescendoed to the point that national security professionals, who have served in multiple administrations, Republican presidents, came together and said ‘Enough.’” Zakheim mentioned Trump’s attack on Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan” as “just enough.”
Hegseth sounded like he was begging. He said, “It doesn’t take away from, as you know very well, the downsides of this administration, almost all of which were in some ways a partnership with Hillary Clinton. Whether it’s Libya or the abandonment in Iraq or elsewhere.” He asked whether a Hillary Clinton presidency wouldn’t “lead to just as dangerous of a world?”
But Zakheim didn’t budge. “We have a choice here between someone who’s bad and someone who’s worse,” he said.
Doocy joined in the begging. “Rather than write this letter and go against your party’s nominee, why not, you know, offer to volunteer to advise him, try to change his mind?”
Zakheim called Trump “someone who doesn’t take advice.” Rebutting the “disloyal Republican” suggestion, Zakehim said, “I participated in supporting Senator Rubio’s candidacy. In my judgment, Donald Trump is not a Republican.”
“A lot of people supported other candidates initially and then moved to Trump when the alternative is Hillary Clinton,” Hegseth continued. “If he’s so dangerous, why are so many members of the military - you look at polls of military and veterans - they overwhelmingly support Donald Trump, who they believe would untie the hands of our war fighters on battlefields where we’re fighting politically correct wars right now. Are there not upsides to sort of blowing up the traditional conventions which haven’t necessarily worked in every corner of the world?”
Zakheim replied, “The Republican nominee in past years has always aspired to have the values and character of the party of Lincoln or the party of Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump falls short of that standard.”
Zakheim made it clear he will not be supporting Hillary Clinton and hinted support for Evan McMullin, the Republican former CIA official who announced his independent candidacy yesterday. “I’m hoping between now and then we’ll have another choice,” Zakheim said.
Watch the Trump-lovers’ desperation, below, from the August 9 Fox & Friends.
“If he’s so dangerous, why are so many members of the military – you look at polls of military and veterans – they overwhelmingly support Donald Trump, who they believe would untie the hands of our war fighters on battlefields where we’re fighting politically correct wars right now. Are there not upsides to sort of blowing up the traditional conventions which haven’t necessarily worked in every corner of the world?”
Oh, you mean the military and veterans who’ve pretty unanimously condemned tRump’s attacks on Capt Khan’s family? Or are these “military and veterans” the ones who spend the majority of their “battles” sitting in armchairs until it’s time to waddle down to the local gun range and shoot a few targets?
As for the ending the “politically correct wars” bit, you mean like the rules that ensure American soldiers are fighting the enemy, instead of torturing and killing innocent civilians? The rules that allow our soldiers to be on the moral side, rather than giving in to wanton slaughter like many of our enemies engage in?
And it’s funny how Hogsweat wants to “blow up the traditional conventions” but how much you want to bet he wants the military to stay “traditional” when it comes to openly LGBT service members and letting women serve in combat? And why does he so strongly want American military personnel to become as bad as the enemy? If they cut off our people’s heads, should we sink to their level? They send suicide bombers, so we drop tons of bombs on civilian targets? We’ve already “blown up” some of the “traditional conventions” by letting standards drop in terms of personnel being high school graduates (or GED equivalent) and skimming over certain “criminal” activity (of course, these folks come back with the new skill set of being more accurate with high-power rifles so they come home and restart their criminal careers by killing more people with more accuracy).